i think we should fix the grace period for 30 months from the date of, you know, december 7th, because most of these projects would not need it, and you have just written this big list, which probably has five or six projects, but from my understanding and my knowledge, i know there are almost ten other projects that are not going to make it, and they are not on that list. and they are -- for some reason, internal reasons or other reasons, financial or other things. i mean, i understand everybody wants to build in the city and we want to make more units and we want to build a higher amount of residential units, which is affordable, whatever, but i don't think this is the strategy of how we will be successful, by putting deadlines on developers and asking them to abide to it. it's almost like an ultimatum. from my understanding, i know one guy who is a developer here, he's actually giving up on his project. he said if i'm going to put more affordable units, it's not part of my feasibility calculations.

i'm out from this. so this is actually triggering an immense negative, you know, impact among developers in the city. and, you know, we urge you to extend the period for another 30 months extra on top of that. because, you know, there's a couple departments in the city, you know, they just delay things. it's the fact, everybody knows this. we need actually to understand that we are here today -- >> supervisor tang: thank you. >> -- because of one thing, which is we need to adhere and -- >> supervisor tang: thank you the. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. cory smith on behalf of san francisco housing action coalition. happy to hear that at least the framework is moving towards an 18-month compromise. appreciate you're kind of going project by project and figuring out what's going on. specifically for the unentitled projects, a speaker before

mentioned there's a lot that happens in the planning process, simple staff turnover can delay it months and months and months, you know, and thinking about this, the affordability crisis is such a big deal in the city. and i think we all know it, and we all feel it, and there's a continued goal to get more housing built here in san francisco that we all agree is crucial. each of these projects we absolutely want to maximize the amount of subsidized affordable housing included. i think we're all in agreement on that. this could be the difference in a few percentage points in your pro forma that will make or break a project. so, i guess our fundamental ask to all of you is let's make sure we do what we can to get these units built, market units, affordability based units for a range of incomes in san francisco, because we desperately need homes for people to live. it helps everybody across the city and across the region.

thank you. >> hi, i'm here on behalf of my family, the developers of 2627 street. we have been, you know, going through this permitting process for over three years now, so adding any additional affordable housing units would create a hardship on our family and all of the time and effort and money we've spent thus far on this project. with that said, we are highly motivated and really want to build this development, you know, we're excited and ready to go. but i did want to point that out, that we've been in this process for over three years. and then this summer i actually contacted supervisor peskin's office, mentioning this. unfortunately, i wouldn't able to speak with anyone directly, but with that said we are, you know, open to compromise and

working with the committee. thank you. >> hi, good afternoon. my name is nick abbott. i'm a resident of district 10. i want to wish my support for extending the grace period up to 30 months or longer. a lot of these projects, i work in public service on the city and spent last weekend to recruit people to work in public service for the city of san francisco and the number one concern among all the recent college graduates i was talking to was lack of affordability in the city, as you know, being one of the biggest issues facing the city. these projects aren't built on the market-rate units, which help contribute to rent citywide and affordable units in the proje projects as they currently are, and creating an unpredictable environment for developers in

they can't trust voter initiatives already in the pipeline and further creating instability and creating to greater bureaucracy in the city undermines the ability to produce more housing of all types. i really encourage the board of supervisors to allow projects currently in the pipeline to make it through this process, given the difficulties they face either with bureaucracy or otherwise, given the pressing need for more housing in the city. thank you. >> hi, laura clark, m.b. action. the 18-month compromise makes a lot of sense. we also have to think about the projects that are still in the permitting process that are not yet entitled. the projects that legislation, you know, that will die without this legislation, are the kinds of projects that this body says that it wants. it is the smaller, not the big-time developers, it's the people doing a 30-unit project for the first time. it's the people who are doing one project and maybe only one

project. this is not going to negatively affect the megaprojects, but this is going to mean that mid rise, middle-income housing is not going to get built. and so please, make this process more predictable. planning department, we all know that this process is unpredictable. we all know that this has been historically ridiculous and unfair. we all know that these projects have had completely random delays thrown at them. and so it really makes sense to do everything you can to make this process more predictable and make sure that we don't kill the pipeline. we only have a few projects in that pipeline. the pipeline is going down, and you need to be thinking creatively about how to make sure that everything that's in there gets permitted. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. peter cohen with council of community housing organizations. however you land this

grandfathering extension, one issue that was brought up last week, which we would highly encourage you to do, is bring to an end grandfathering projects access to state density bonus without paying, if you will, their fair share of additional affordability requirements, which all other developments now have to deal with. that, if you will gift of 26 or 30 months from the original inclusionary to be able to use state density bonus has resulted in projects that are coming in around 11% of affordable housing, when they already had a lowered rate of maybe 13 or 14. and to provide the extra 18 months or whatever it might be to get them to the pipeline sounds reasonable, but not then to be able to, again, dip into that added advantage with no public benefit in return. so that would be an amendment that would make a lot of sense and, frankly, create the level playing field in this policy, even with this small extension. thank you.

>> supervisor tang: thank you very much. any other members of the public that wish to comment on item 6, please come on up. >> todd davis on behalf of the san francisco housing coalition. we'd like to remind everyone housing is a community benefit. people need places to live and if the state density bonus is a way that a project can become feasible, that is something we should be encouraging. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. any other members? public comment is close the -- closed. all right, supervisors. now we have a time to look at the amendments. any supervisor want to jump in? supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: i did hand out copies of the amendment we had asked the city attorney to draft, and so i ask this committee to adopt those amendments. >> supervisor tang: supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you,

madam chair. colleagues, i just want to remind everybody of the context, and i absolutely agree that predictability and stability is very important in this business, which is precisely why we crafted collectively a piece of legislation actually even before proposition "c" was passed in june of 2016. and i don't think anybody's disagreeing about what we all want, which is the maximum feasible amount of affordable housing, and to that end, we had a technical advisory committee process, and we ended up landing on the inclusionary numbers that we have today in san francisco, and we also negotiated the environmental evaluation application date relative to grandfathering, and we also, i think, very correctly put a use

it or lose it time frame in there, which everybody has known for the last two and a half years, that this date was coming. having said that and having looked at the universe of projects, i think supervisor kim and i were willing to, for entitled projects, to have a year extension from the date of entitlement. and ultimately compromised with the mayor's administration to elongate that to 18 months, which i'm glad many people are embracing. again, it is our desire to build the housing, and it was actually my preference, and i think i voiced this at our last meeting on this issue, to stress test each and every one of these. the council for three of these projects said, look, i don't have pro formas, i don't want to put words in your mouth that the project can't sustain higher levels of affordability, but we actually know, because we went

through a technical advisory process and everybody came to agreement, and it's my belief that for those folks who lose it, they are going to continue to do these projects at today's slightly higher inclusionary rates. if you look at the couple of projects that we're now talking about, and with all due respect to the planning department, 1515 shouldn't be on the list, 519 ellis shouldn't be on the list, but as to those couple of remaining projects, yeah, you're talking about a total of eight more units of affordable housing. i suspect those projects will be built. i mean, the 95-unit project on 7th street, if it's family owned, their basis in the property is probably pretty low, but, you know, i'm happy to do it -- take a totally different approach to this, which is we can stress test each and every one of these things. having said that, i think we came up with a pretty good

compromise, and then with all respect to the representative of the mayor's office, generally the way this works is when the supervisors say last week, hey, city attorney, we want you to craft some amendments, generally we work collaboratively in the intervening week, and you don't go and dump your own amendments on this committee, particularly amendments that were not in any way discussed with the supervisors who were indicating that we wanted to work together, compromise, and that we were drafting some amendments. that's just the way it works here, and that's the way it's worked here for the almost 20 years that i've been on and off the board of supervisors. i just want to send that message so that we don't have these misunderstandings going forward, but it's not cool to dump new language that no one has seen before or agreed to. we came to this in good faith and a deal is a deal, and we're actually -- this is a deal that

then-supervisor breed, supervisor safai, and these two supervisors, kim and myself, agreed to and enacted unanimously. this is the second bite of apple, we're trying to be reasonable, but our fundamental thrust is to build as much affordable housing as possible, and i think we're doing that here. >> supervisor tang: thank you. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: i'd like to agree with a lot of what supervisor peskin said. we put a lot of work into coming up with these inclusionary numbers. there was a lot of thought, i know that supervisor kim, a lot of these projects are in her district, so the idea there would be an extended period of time to allow for entitlement, and that was a date that was chosen. there was a lot of conversation about this over a long period of time, so as supervisor peskin said, a lot of us have known

about this. i understand because these are -- i think almost every single one except for two or three, maybe four or five, are less than 100 units. the vast majority of these projects were smaller units, which means they are not necessarily always folks that are doing development all the time. i think as we've gone through the list, and that's why i asked for each specific one, almost every one of them has been taken off the list that would not be able to deal with 18 months. i think 18 months is a good compromise, so i appreciate the mayor's office and supervisor kim and peskin coming to a deal. it seems as though there's just these one or two projects that we're left with. i know the attorney couldn't speak on behalf of the family in terms of the pro forma. i know if we were to pass this today, there's still additional time to have conversations. i just wanted to ask the project sponsor from 262 7th street.

you said supervisor peskin's office. did you mean supervisor peskin, or supervisor kim's office? and it sounded as though you were interested in continuing the conversation, and if it's only two projects here, i wonder if those projects could be put to the stress test in the amount of time that we have to pass a final resolution? i'm interested to hear if supervisor peskin or kim would be interested in digging down on the numbers of those last two projects that are not entitled yet. through the chair. so if we could put those two projects to the stress test and ask the project sponsors to reach out to supervisor kim's office, i think they are both in supervisor kim's office. that seems to me to be at least -- it's not allowing them 100% that they are going to be included into the final mix, but it would allow them the opportunity to have the planning department put stress tests on those two projects to see if they could actually withstand additional inclusionary.

>> supervisor tang: supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: i'll just say this is my first time hearing from 111 turk or 262 7th street. i did hear from a number of other projects who are concerned back in the spring and summer that they would not make their december 7th deadline. i think you knew the deadline was coming, you had time to come to the supervisor, i did not hear from you. if john kevlon is your attorney, then you're clearly resourced. i'm happy to continue the conversation, but won't be including unentitled projects in this ordinance as-is, but again, i encourage you to reach out. i need to be convinced you can't do the current obligation as required by section 415. >> supervisor tang: okay. so, colleagues, now we had kind of, i guess, two versions in front of us. do we have a motion to make amendment?

>> supervisor kim: i'll motion to amend and can read that into the record to make it clear. this was the amendment we asked the city attorney to draft last monday. on page 64-a, in the event the project has not been approved, which shall mean approval following administrative board, the project shall comply with affordable housing requirements set forth in section 414.5.6.6 as applicable in the event of litigation seeking to invalidate the city approval for such process for the duration of litigation. for example, if there is litigation, of course, we would extend your date. b, in the event the project has been approved on or before december 7th, the sponsor does not secure a building permit or site permit for construction of the affordable housing units within 18 months of the project's approval or by december 7, 2018, whichever is

later, the development project shall comply with the inclusionary requirements set forth as applicable, the deadline should be extended for such project for the duration of the litigation for the purposes of the subsection b, the date of approval shall be the date of any administrative appeal to the relevant board. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much, supervisor kim. so you have a motion to that effect, and we can do that without objection then. we'll do that without objection. all right, colleagues. and as amended, do we have a motion on the item? the underlying item? >> supervisor kim: i'll make a motion to move this forward with positive recommendation to the board. >> supervisor tang: okay, as amended, we'll do that without objection. thank you very much. madam clerk, item 7, please. >> clerk: item number 7 is an ordinance amending the planning code and zoning map to establish 430 29th avenue special use district and affirming appropriate findings.

>> supervisor tang: okay, and do we have someone from supervisor fewer's office here? okay, great, sorry. >> good afternoon, supervisors, chair tang. so we just have an issue that supervisor and planning department and the city attorney are trying to work out, just a small issue on this. we ask for this to be continued for a week. >> supervisor tang: okay. so on item 7, we'll make a motion to continue the item for one week to november 5th. we'll do that without objection. sorry, public comment on this item. okay, seeing no public comment, public comment's closed. all right. now if we can have that motion to continue this item for one week. without objection. all right, madam clerk, item 8, please. >> clerk: item number 8 is an ordinance amending the planning code to allow square footage of baseline office space that is converted to non-office uses to be available for allocation under the office development

limit program and requiring zoning administrator written determination for such space and affirming appropriate findings. >> supervisor tang: okay, thank you very much, and i believe that there has been a request to continue this item, as well, so i'm going to open up item 8 first to public comment, unless supervisor peskin would like to make some comments first. item 8, continuance. >> supervisor peskin: madam chair, i will make a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair. >> supervisor tang: seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. okay, as supervisor peskin stated, continue this item to november -- sorry. >> supervisor peskin: no, it's the following item. >> supervisor tang: oh, following item. >> supervisor peskin: yes, item 8, if you could make a motion to continue that to the call of the chair. >> supervisor tang: to the call of the chair. madam clerk, did you need this to be a date certain because of noticing issues? >> clerk: there's no noticing issue.

>> supervisor tang: okay. and the house has changed, so we are now just with supervisor safai continuing to call the chair. all right. without objection. thank you very much. item 9, please. >> clerk: ordinance to amend the planning code to change zoning controls for non-retail sales and service uses in the c-3-r downtown zoning district, amending the planning and administrative codes to create union square spark, recreation, and open space fund and fee, and affirming appropriate findings. >> supervisor tang: thank you, and turn it over to supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: subject to public comment, i'd like to continue this to december 3rd. >> supervisor tang: okay, item 9, public comment? public comment is closed. item 9 continued to the december 3rd land use meeting. we can do that without

objection. okay. all right, item 10, please. >> clerk: item number 10 is a resolution urging support for water board proposed updates to the 2006 bay-delta plan. >> supervisor tang: supervisor peskin? >> supervisor tang: thank you, madam chair, and thank you for scheduling this both for last week's land use committee meeting and as well as for today's. i want to start this discussion in some stark and real terms, and that is that san francisco bay is being starved of water flows needed to keep the bay alive and healthy, and it's a problem that has grown worse over time. at the same time, san francisco has and should continue to be a regional, if not national and world leader on environmental

issues. the tension between the forces that would further diminish flows and the very feasible environmental goals is why we find ourselves here today. by way of background, the current bay-delta water quality standards were set by the state board, the state water board, in 1995, over two decades ago. those standards have proven to be disastrously inadequate. they did not stop a half a dozen fish species from being put on the endangered species list, making san francisco bay a natural hot spot for extinction risk. they did not stop the collapse of salmon runs in the decision to ban commercial and recreational fishing in 2008 and 2009. unless reversed, it could end salmon fishing on san francisco's fisherman's wharf. that's a legacy no one wants, nor do the current flow standards stop outbreaks of toxic algae that threaten the health and lives of children and pets.

the legislature, the state legislature, recognized this problem in 2009, when it told the state board to look at the science and determine what flows are needed to protect and restore the bay. and it's why the entire bay area environmental and fishing community has united around this resolution. three dozen groups wrote to support the resolution last week, including support from native-american tribes for whom salmon and healthy rivers are an essential part of their livelihood. we also know our climate is warming, meaning our water supply is at risk of longer and deeper droughts than in the past. we need to focus on this, i think we all agree. instead, i think the p.u.c. has found itself in the unfortunate position of not being in a position to advocate for the highest standards for bay protection. and, frankly, this has put san francisco behind much of the rest of the state in investing in water supply alternatives,

though i believe the p.u.c. and the san francisco chronicle for that matter recognize the need to innovate in this regard. but as it stands, while we dither, other cities have recognized the need for stronger environmental protections. east bay mud has built their freeport project, giving them a new water supply if a disastrous drought hits. orange county is now the world leader in water recycling. contra costa built an offstream reservoir for water during droughts. now they are planning to expand that reservoir in a way that can help the environment and cities. santa monica's cleaning up the groundwater and storm water and is planning to be completely independent, eliminating their use of water from the bay-delta. san francisco, i think, should be leaders in this area, but, frankly, we have not been, and this resolution, pun intended, endeavors to turn the tide.

the resolution before you reflects conversations and negotiations with the p.u.c. over the past couple of weeks for which i would like to thank general manager harlin kelly and his staff michael carlin and juliet ellis, as well as my staff, to resolve these outstanding issues. over the past week i've had an opportunity to discuss these issues with former secretary of the interior bruce babette, who has been mediating this matter between many of the parties, as well as i understand that governor brown has also weighed in with his desire to ensure the state water board takes decisive action at their november 7th meeting. to that end, the critical changes in the version now before you, colleagues, are reflected in the first resolved clause at page 3, line 16, which i'll read into the record. and i've given you all redline copies, as well as clean copies, but this is the meat of the

matter. and that is resolved that the san francisco board of supervisors urges the state water board to act at its november 7, 2018, meeting to adopt the current proposed update to the 2006 water quality control plan and further urges the state water board to allow sfpuc, other water agencies, and environmental and fishing groups to enter into voluntary agreements in a timely manner for consideration by the state water board prior to implementation of the proposed plan update. this language affects the desire for the state water board to act to adopt its plan update on wednesday, november 7th, while acknowledging that negotiations between the p.u.c. and other water agencies are ongoing. in the interest of ensuring san francisco takes a seat at the front of these issues, both as a water innovator and environmental leader, the new resolved clause recognizes the importance of having the n.g.o.

community, including environmental and fishing groups, party to any resulting voluntary agreements. one other thought, which i say at risk of sounding a little n cynical about this matter, is at the end of the day, as much as we love harlin and carlin, as i fondly call them, the p.u.c., like our airport, is a business enterprise. it is a business. and like any business, among its primary driving motives is profitability and ensuring it makes enough money to continually invest in the city's infrastructure. it's not a bad use of those funds, and money makes the world go round, but none of this can come at the expense of the region's environment. it's a very real dichotomy between profit and habitat conservation and one that the federal government has, unfortunatelily, leveraged in this instance, and i want to point out that broader context, as relevant to the situation that we find ourselves in, where

san francisco is being called upon to be at the forefront of environmental restoration and water innovation, and that, with that, colleagues, i ask for your support for these amendments and to send this resolution to the full board as amended, as a committee report for hearing tomorrow, because that is the last board meeting that we have prior to the november 7th action by the state water board. i have a number of speaker cards, but i will turn it over to my colleagues. >> supervisor tang: thank you. and i see p.u.c. staff here, so would you like to also speak on this item? >> yeah, what we would like to do is kind of go over where we are today, and i'll have michael kind of give you some of the details of what we're facing. first of all, i'd like to thank you for the opportunity to update you all on the critical

work that the p.u.c. is doing to plan for the future of san francisco's drinking water supply. [ please stand by ]

>> i understand the fish population is not doing well and we need to do some changes so that they can do better. which includes providing more water. we are willing to do our part. but we need to do it in a smart and thoughtful way. no, i want to go over what the state water resources control board wants us to give up more of the water that we store during dry years. the state plan would require us to release 100 million gallons of water per day during dry years. that equals about half the amount of water we deliver for our customers every day systemwide. so if you think about it for a moment to, the state wants us to require san francisco to give up half of the drinking water that we all depend on during the drought with no certain amount of new sources of water.

for us to go with that blindly, it would be incredibly irresponsible and would put our customers at risk. that is why we wanted to make sure that was included in the resolution that we still feel a voluntary settlement is the way to go. so, with that, if it does act and we are not able to come to some compromise, what that would mean is that we would immediately start working on large-scale and costly alternative water supply projects. and our customers would be on the hook for paying for these new alternative water supply projects. so additionally, the work we are currently working on as well, which means the utility bill would be much higher. in addition, one of the

challenges would be that we couldn't provide certainty to developers that they would be enough adequate supply during a prolonged drought. make no mistake, this is a complicated issue and there's a lot of misinformation out there about san francisco's posters role in this process. so i want to make sure that i am clear that we have been engaged and we will continue to engage on local, state and federal agencies, primarily career employees on river issues under both democratic and republican administration. that is our job. it is insulting that anyone would insinuate that we are pushing a partisan political agenda. at the state level, this falls -- the governor brown administration contained stakeholders to participate in a

volunteer settlement negotiation in earnest. these negotiations are happening now. we were invited to participate. we don't decide who gets to participate. we are one of many stakeholders at the table, which include state agencies, water, utilities and irrigation districts. we have also engaged several groups who aren't at the negotiating table but have a strong interest in the outcome. these groups include environmental groups, bay area community organizations, our wholesale customers and third-party experts. we have had public hearings at our commission meeting and had multiple one-on-one meetings with environmental organizations based on many conversations and third-party research, we are pushing for a responsible and sustainable path forward to help the fish and the people. san francisco is already setting

aside water in dry use for fish and we are prepared to put more aside. but we feel that it must be done in a thoughtful way based on community understanding on the best available science. we spent $25 million studying the rivers, specifically to understand how best to increase fish population in the river. we have developed a robust plan on actual studies on the river. the delta plan is based on, nor does it rely on site specific science studies on the river. so i just want to let folks know here in san francisco what is at stake right now. we must all come to the consensus on this issue or people and the fish will suffer.

i would like to turn it over to michael to give an overview of the plan and how that affects the p.u.c. water supply. >> thank you. you just made a comment towards the end about how the study, i am guessing with the state, it is not based on the river. can you expand on that a bit more. >> i can let michael with his presentation. >> sure. just answer your question, the state -- the population of the science not only california but from the pacific northwest and other places in the information that we have submitted to the state water board for consideration is site specific studies on the river. we participated in their studies with the modesto irrigation districts who are the senior water rights holders on the river to the tune of about $25 million. that is what we are basing our plan on. >> what is the state basing his information on? >> it is from other places in

the state of california. it is not just on the river, but the pacific northwest and other places where they have done work on salmon and trout. >> ok. thank you. you can go on with your presentation. >> that's fine. as supervisor peskin said, i am the carlin in carlin, carlin and carlin. i want to orient you. we deliver drinking water to 2.7 million customers every day. all the san francisco residences and businesses and we have 27 wholesale customers throughout the bay area. it is not just about san francisco. it is the entire service area that we serve. one of the things that comes up is how much water do our customers use. this is a graphic showing what s.f. customers currently use which is about 42 gallons per person per day. that is the lowest in the state. compared to our service area it is about $59 million per day.

the average is 84. and the southern california average is 89 and those numbers are averages. there are higher and lower places in southern california. under the plan, if we have to go to receipt -- extreme rationing to 64%, our customers would be limited to 15 gallons per person per day. i am just trying to put this in perspective as we go through this. to orient you to the bay delta, it includes the sacramento river his and what we are talking about is tributaries to the san joaquin river and there are three tributaries that are being addressed in the state board's plan. as you can see on the map, one is located on the upper end of the river. the bay delta has drinking water for 27 million people in california. that includes the bay area. one of the things that he

mentioned was the 200 million gallons per day. when we translate that into how much water we actually divert, we divert less than one% of inflow going into the bay delta. yet we serve seven% of the population of california and all the businesses back such as those in silicon valley and other parts of the bay area. again to orient you, the tributary of san joaquin, we divert water so it does not go down the river. is diverted at the reservoir. this represents about 85% of our water supply. amount of our water supply today. what you will be hearing about is the river in respect to the bay delta plan what is the plastically while we agree with

the plan, we don't agree with the means of the plan and that is an important distinction we want to make. what we are trying to do is balance between the fish and wildlife uses and water supply or reliability. the means that were proposed by the state water board is 40% unprepared flow february through june. even during times of drought. there is no relief. every year it is 40% of unimpaired flow. when he think about the system which is an acr based system with a snowpack, one just a snowmelt? i don't know if any of you are scarce but it melts in the february, march, april, may timeframe and we get inflow into our reservoirs. we are very dependent on that at this point in time. we want to improve flow conditions on the river and we are proposing more flow on the river and we want to pay that with -- prepare that was science

-based measures to improve conditions on the river for the fish and we will talk about that in a little bit. what are the impacts of unimpaired flow? in this graphic, we have what we call our a and a half year drought planning scenario. it is a drought planning scenario. it is not how we operate with this is what we plan for the future in developing new water supplies. so the solid blue line represents what we would say is over an a and a half year period where we would have a policy of trying not to have any more than 20% rationing in any given year during a drought. as you can see, we go to 25% later in the drought planning sequence. we are trying to develop projects to make that a 20% number as well. the green --dash line on the other hand represents what would happen with 40% unimpaired flow under the state water board plan as you can see in your five -- in year five, we run out of water if we were to stick to the 25% of rationing. this is a drought planning

scenario that was developed in 1994 after the 1987 through 1992 drought and it adds onto the 1976 drought. white that is important is because we codify this policy when we did the water improvement program back in 2008 and we did an environmental impact report on this. this is a policy we have in place and have been operating on for decades. is a very prudent policy to have in place given climate change and other things that are happening in the world. what are the consequences of the state plan? it is a supply shortfall. we would be short about one half of our total water supply during a drought. so we serve about 200 million gallons a day. we would have to make up about 100 million gallons. so we would have three options that we would look at to make up the difference. one is we would have the status quo and we have a five year drought and we run out of water

in five years. the second option is to develop alternative supplies. the chart on the left breaks on the current supplies and the trite -- chart on the right shows the supplies we would have available to us under the state 's plan if we had to reduce by 50% or more. we have been developing supplies but the magnitude requires more than just ground water and recycled. we are bringing about 4 million -- that amount of groundwater is useful but we have to provide an additional a million to 10 million gallons a day just to make up with groundwater. what are we doing to make up the shortfall? we can make up the shortfall by this list of projects that we have here. these are projects that we were working on right now and looking at these projects could produce up to 50 million gallons per day in a 10-30 year period. as supervisor peskin mentioned,

reservoir expansion, we are involved as a partner in that in looking at the benefits to san francisco if the reservoir is expanded. we are also looking at a number of other expansion projects with recycled water, possible reuse, desalinization and even purified water treating waste water for drinking water purposes. this would be about 28- 50 million gallons per day cost about $2 million or more. it is very, very tough road to go down as far as regulatory and contractual obligations, financing and the reliability of these projects. there is a lot of gifts in these projects and developing a water supply project in california is very difficult. one of the other things i was mentioned about water supply is transfers. transfers are something we would go to and other water utilities and in this case, irrigation districts and we would purchase water from them. we have attempted this in the

past and look for opportunities, mostly in the central valley of california. we have not been successful to date. the one thing you have to remember, when you want a water transfer during a drought, most other people don't have that much water they can sell. this is what the picture looks like for extreme rationing under the state plan. another option is we would change our rationing profile and we would look at whether or not we can survive our a and a half year drought planning scenario. the first thing we notice is after the first year of the drought, you would be going from 40% conservation. one thing that you don't know is in the first year of a drought you don't know you're in a drought until you are hitting the second year. you can see a gets to be very extreme if we wanted to conserve the water supply. we would need to conserve up to 64% during the drought planning scenario. this is where the 12 billion gallons per day come in or 15 million gallons per day coming over the 42 we are using today.

>> this is based on how many mpd >> this is based on 265. the total bill that which we have to take into consideration. >> so this whole scenario is based on 265 million gallons per day, which you wouldn't get too until the middle of this eccentrically that is not anywhere close to what we use now. >> that is correct. we are at 195 now and we are at 223 prior to the drought. we see it going up. we also have to take into consideration every new development that comes into play and having an adequate supply developments come online. >> i don't want to litigate this matter here. the resolution is a resolution. i'm glad we came to an agreement on the language and i'm not to truncate this. but if you want to have an apples to apples comparison, you should really show that scenario

at 195 million gallons per day. not at 265 which presumes like a another 20 years of bay area growth. just fyi, supervisors. >> is there a reason why we are using 195? i mean, 265. >> we actually have those scenarios and we can supply those to you. we have 14175, 223 and it shows us running out of water in year five with a 40% unimpaired flow. i would be glad to supply those to the supervisors seem on part of this longest -- longer conversation is the whole notion of alternative supplies and innovation and whether its use of recycled water, purple pike, a million things that other cities are doing that could happen between now and mid century.

>> since we are just on slide nine and diversified water supply and what supervisor peskin just said, i know we have run into this issue as we are talking about watering places like sunset boulevard which the department has been very intimately involved with the office on. but we came across a state provision where if you are deemed a recreational area, then you get to water during drought years whereas lands that are not in recreational areas such as sunset boulevard, for example, than they are restricted during those drought years. at the end of the day, it is all water. we are using this and just because recreation and park has that land and it is deemed recreational doesn't mean we don't have a water supply issue during a drought year. can you go into that and what is it that we will do with some of these departments that essentially haven't had to tighten their belts on the water issue during those drought years simply because of the state

provision regarding recreational areas. >> for a department like the recreation and park to -- department to, they like to conserve water as best as they can. we have been investing into their systems to make them more efficient and on the west side of san francisco, when we complete the water plant, we will be delivering recycled water to golden gate park in the long sunset boulevard. they will become a potable water system and recut -- recycled water system. we are moving towards that just like other communities in california see when i would -- >> i would urge, i know you are doing projects and keep moving towards that direction. i very much look forward to the sunset boulevard project because otherwise we are spending 90,00, drinking water, every time we water for 15 minutes. hence it has been neglected. to the extent that we can really ramp those projects up is really important because i don't think there should be a distinction between whether it is a

recreation area versus not. >> i absolutely agree. that is why we partner with daly city on projects. we are moving in that direction. we do not have -- for the projects of our size, we do not have that much area that we can actually use recycled water on. you are right. damn sunset boulevard in golden gate park and moving across town to lincoln park, they are all projects we are working on currently. >> thank you. >> what are the current -- consequences of the state plan? one of the things we look at is if we are going to develop these other projects, there may be immediate and substantial right increases. -- rate increases. these would be because we already have rate increases in our long-term planning for projects that we have in our capital plan. these would be for additional water supply. the second blow on here about

delay and potential construction moratorium, this happens to be in the california water code that if you 500 units or more, you have to have erectors reliable source of supply. we have been doing this supply assessment and we would continue to do them. it would put us in jeopardy of whether or not we would have a source of supply going forward. it doesn't stop the project delays until we can actually identify and perhaps build that next increment of water supply. >> what are we proposing in the plan that will help fish and people? we have three major components of the plan that we are putting forward. one is predation control and another is habitat restoration and the other is functional flows. i will explain each one of these we propose to release more water than we do now but it will be less than what the state water board plan is. our plan aligns our releases to elicit a specific biological response.

and we will talk a little bit about why that is important. we have studied the river and we have found the best way to attract the fish, have the fish spawn, rear of the fish, push them out into the ocean. is a combination of these measures that you just can't have flow but you have to have habitat for the fish to come back to. one of the first thing this is predation control. we are not talking about completely eradicating the predators but suppressing their numbers and perhaps segregating them from where the fish would spawn. in this picture you have a striped bass which is in introduced species in the united states and those fish are salmon we have a problem because we see about 90% of the small salmon going out to the ocean that are eaten by predators. it is a fact. so we need to have some sort of predator control. the second thing is habitat restoration. as part of our plan we are looking at increasing the

spawning gravel that are available for spawning and cleaning the gravels and putting in a wooded debris for the fish to hide in. this is an important element and we plan to do that over the next 12-15 years. we are also trying to control non-native vegetation and doing some floodplain habitat restoration. all in the effort to increase the ability of these fish to spawn and to be born, to come out of the gravel, feed, grow, and go out to the ocean. >> have you been doing any of this planning in conjunction with the n.g.o. community that i encourage you and the general manager to work with? >> they know this is one of the elements of the plan and we have sat down with some of the n.g.o. , not all of them. as you mentioned, secretary babbitt has complete -- convened a group and some of that group

is represented by the environmental defence fund, nature conservancy, american rivers, and others. we have been talking to them about this. >> you have a question as well. >> just to go back to the predator issue, this is a sensitive subject for fish and game folks that are involved at state level. i know they have been partly responsible for information that i have gathered from allowing for the expansion of predators in the delta, particularly bad -- big mouth bass. they are one of the fishes that people like to catch as part of sports fishing. but they are also one of the main predators of salmon. can you talk about that for a minute and what conversations you have had to reduce -- i know you mentioned it briefly but i'm interested to hear specifically. >> so -- >> and what you believe in what

the studies have shown of how they contribute to the reduction of salmon. >> they basically prey upon the small salmon as they migrate out to sea and they reduce the salmon population by 90% plus and this has been studies that have been released over the past decade or so. we have been working with the california department of fish and wildlife as part of this process to come up with -- control sounds different but it is a suppression project. if we can suppress that bass bite ten% in the tuolumne river, especially when the salmon are there, they are spawning, they are laying their eggs and the small fish start to emerge from the gravel, if we could do that to, we can have a better return on the number of fish per female spawners that grow to the size that can out migrate. so while it is a touchy issue with the california department of fish and wildlife because you're talking about sports fishing and competing sports fishing interest, we are looking at working as perhaps of all of

the talks were having an experiment to do part -- suppression. there is predator sit suppression being conducted and is about to be conducted on the river. we are looking to see what those results produce as we devise and develop our program. >> is that part of the conversation -- i understand this is about water flow, but are these parallel conversations and how are they linked? how do we ensure that they are effectuated in terms of this conversation? i understand this as a preservation of the bay delta. this is about preservation of our sources of water and the lack of natural water flow contributes to the temperature rise in the bay. but it is also about the protection of a particular type of fish that is important to the area. i think there is unanimous agreement about that but i don't know how strong and robust the conversations are about predator control and what kind -- and how they have been infused in this conversation.

>> they are part of the overall conversation because we are looking at a whole suite of measures and not just flow. we looking at measures such as predator depression, habitat restoration and all talked -- tied together on the outcome we have. it is all linked as one. >> will those be written and formalized agreements? >> yes. >> thank you. >> the other thing that we look at is what we call functional flows versus unimpaired flows. the right amount of water at the right time to produce a result. for example, adult salmon around the ocean and how did they know that it's time to go upstream and spawn? and unfortunately die. it is when we put out a pulse flow in the october timeframe. how do we know that the small fish have emerged from the gravel and they need a -- need a place to feed with a nursery area so we push them onto a floodplain and we do a flow for that. when they grow out of the size, we know at certain times it is time to push them out into the

ocean and that is when the migration happens. we have a flow schedule and an amount of water that we would -- that would achieve each one of those goals. this is an interesting graphic where it shows the female spawners and it gets to the question of how much water goes down the river in these different flow types and how many young fish are produced per female spawners. so in our base case, what we have today is a number about six may be fish being produced for 216,000 acres per feet. the statewide plan limits three times the amount of water going down in that february through june time period and reproduced two more fish, two and a half more fish per female spawners. with our proposal with the functional flows spread out over time, we produce about 15.6 small fish per female spawners. i think that is an important

thing. we are looking at targeting the flows to a biological response. >> i don't know if this is a question that you would like to answer as supervisor peskin, given this chart, especially, lies at the state -- the state is proposing such an increase flow when the p.u.c. studies are showing that we might actually be able to save more salmon with less flow? >> if i were putting it nicely, there is a disagreement amongst experts. >> i think that is a fair statement. >> ok. >> where do we go from here? this is the real kicker. as mr kelly said, we basically are looking at trying to come up with a negotiated voluntary settlement. the settlement discussions were

convened by the state of california's department of water resources and the state department of california fish and wildlife. and through the governor's office. as supervisor peskin mentioned, governor brown appointed bruce babbitt to help facilitate and mediate those meetings and we have been meeting with him and the state representatives for quite some time. we think that -- negotiated settlement allows us to get the benefits we want and have the environmental certainty for the fish of the tuolumne and preserves the water supply reliability, even though we will go through jobs that are greater than the ones we have experience to date. one of the things that you should understand, if the waiver will be in structured, it is not a hard and fast thing. it will be a continuous improvement loop built into it. if things aren't working, we are trying to figure out how to come back and make things better. thatan